Human-confirmed mapping
A proposed mapping stays a proposal until a reviewer confirms it.
For plaintiff-side investigation teams
Start with the row behind the call.
When a client sends screenshots, a call log, and a text export, the first question is what the records actually show. Put them in order before naming the pattern.
First intake review
Three files can tell three different stories.
A screenshot shows a calling number but loses the export row and time zone. A carrier file uses UTC. An intake note says “same company” without identifying the source for that assertion. Before treating these as a sequence, someone has to reconcile them.
The proposed Call Evidence Review workflow starts there. It preserves what the client supplied, records how a derived event was mapped, and makes uncertain or excluded rows visible. It then shows exact number matches as leads for the firm to review.
A reviewable chain
Keep the source beside the observation.
- 1
Inventory the intake
Preview each CSV, its column mapping and source time zone, and the rows accepted or excluded. Confirm the mapping before the normalized chronology is accepted.
- 2
Inspect the pattern
Open a repeated presented calling number and see the matching source files, row IDs, and normalized event times. A lead stays linked to its sources.
- 3
Record the open questions
Separate the client’s assertion from the supplied record and the firm’s conclusion. The reviewer can note when dialer, subscriber, consent, opt-out, or number-control evidence is still needed.
- 4
Approve the workpaper
A named reviewer chooses what enters the final version. Export a chronology and source manifest for the system your firm already uses.
Illustrative, fictional example
One presented number. Three source rows. Still a question.
Three call-log rows contain the same presented calling number. The exact match is useful: it tells a reviewer which records to inspect together. It does not identify the caller behind any of those events.
A current CNAM or LRN lookup may add a dated clue when separately requested. It cannot travel back to the day of the call. The workpaper should leave historical identity open until independently supported.
Illustrative review lead · synthetic data
Repeated presented number
calls_oct.csv · row 1842Normalized: 13:12 UTC
calls_oct.csv · row 1866Normalized: 13:16 UTC
calls_nov.csv · row 207Normalized: 14:32 UTC
Optional AI · pilot evaluation
Give assistance a narrow job.
We are evaluating AI suggestions for mapping and source-linked questions. Any processor use will require a matter-level choice and disclosed terms. The current CSV review and workpaper flow does not depend on AI.
Source-linked answers
A future factual answer must point to the supplied rows used to support it.
Attorney judgment stays with the firm
No AI-generated defendant, liability finding, paid lookup approval, or automatic report sign-off.
What a call record review does not establish
A presented calling number can be spoofed. A port date does not prove a change in subscriber. A current name or carrier response is not a historical ownership record. And a clean chronology does not supply consent evidence absent from the files.
These limits belong next to the result, not in small print after a conclusion. VRI supports the record review; counsel decides what the facts and law mean.
Common intake questions
Before the next decision
Can the system identify who made the calls?
No. It can show exact matches and selected current number intelligence. Historical caller attribution needs other evidence.
What if a row has the wrong time zone?
The import preview should surface the ambiguity for a reviewer to correct. The source value remains available beside the normalized time.
Does this replace discovery?
No. A missing-proof list helps the team see which records it may still need from others.
Do we need to move our cases?
No. The proposed workpaper and source manifest are designed for export back into the firm’s own workflow.
See whether one matter fits the pilot.
Tell us the file types and approximate row count. We can discuss access, scope and cost without receiving client evidence by email.